Commonwealth v. Veal
Commonwealth v. William Veal
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
On this appeal which is here under the provisions of G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, the defendant assigns as error joinder for trial of separate offences in two counts of one indictment. Each count alleges an unlawful sale of heroin, which sales allegedly occurred nine days apart. The judge did not abuse his discretion in the denial of the pre-trial motion for severance. The offences were kindred and liable to punishment of the same general character. See Commonwealth v. Iannello, 344 Mass. 723, 727-728 ; Commonwealth v. Blow, ante, 196, 200. The defendant complains also of the introduction of evidence of previous convictions which when offered by the Commonwealth was not objected to. Commonwealth v. Nunes, 351 Mass. 401, 405 . Evidence of prior convictions of the defendant was properly admitted. Commonwealth v . Ladetto, 353 Mass. 746 . Subilosky v. Commonwealth, 358 *878 Mass. 390, 395-396 . There was no error in refusing the defendant the opportunity to explain his prior convictions. Commonwealth v. Callahan, 358 Mass. 808 .
The case was submitted on briefs. Robert V. Greco & Reuben Goodman, for the defendant. Garrett H. Byrne, District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Judgments affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.